Best Of
Contest for Parent Node
This post got inspired by this comment.
What would yall think if, when a node was about to level up and lock out its neighbors from leveling up, it would instead open a contest for that lock out. Send out a challenge to any potential rival nodes surrounding it.
The time period of this challenge would depend on the stage of the node that's about to level up, so, say, the challenge for lvl1 upgrade would last just 1-2h, lvl2 could be smth like 10h and lvl3 could be a day or two (and anything higher obviously longer).
Players in the contesting node (if there is one at the time of the challenge) would get a notification of "neighboring node is about to lock this one out. Do this and this if you wanna try and prevent that". And it'd be up to players in those node to decide on the spot if they wanna help the potentially locked out node.
At lvls < 3 it could just be about direct node XP, so the suggested actions would include smth like "do quests" (cause they maybe give the most node xp), while after lvl3 the contest could depend on the type of nodes that are fighting for the lvl up and player actions would require them to do something related to the type of their node.
Imo this would be a much better system than just "well, this node simply had more people in it, so your node got fucked over".
Especially because I believe that mobs will be spawning in the same locations on every server. And those mobs will have the same loot across all servers. This then means that groups (namely guilds, especially hardcore ones) that are trying to play optimally would grind those mobs/bosses (gatherable mats) in the same spots on all servers, which then means that the nodes that house those mobs/gatherables would be the ones getting the most xp, which would lead to them being the ones that lvl up the fastest. And this could inevitably lead to samey-looking servers, which kinda goes against the plan of "each server will look diferently cause different nodes will grow at different paces on different servers".
And yes, I know, the classic "let's test this before suggesting changes" always applies, but I doubt we'll see the true picture of how nodes will grow during A2. We miiiight see that in betas, but those are years out and putting untested changes into the NODE system seems like a bad idea that close to release.
All the while, testing my suggestion would be fairly simple. Intrepid delevel a bunch of nodes in a location > tp people there (during a predetermined test time) > say "choose a node you want and play like you'd play normally" > and then see how well the challenge thing does, if at all well.
So, what do yall think?
What would yall think if, when a node was about to level up and lock out its neighbors from leveling up, it would instead open a contest for that lock out. Send out a challenge to any potential rival nodes surrounding it.
The time period of this challenge would depend on the stage of the node that's about to level up, so, say, the challenge for lvl1 upgrade would last just 1-2h, lvl2 could be smth like 10h and lvl3 could be a day or two (and anything higher obviously longer).
Players in the contesting node (if there is one at the time of the challenge) would get a notification of "neighboring node is about to lock this one out. Do this and this if you wanna try and prevent that". And it'd be up to players in those node to decide on the spot if they wanna help the potentially locked out node.
At lvls < 3 it could just be about direct node XP, so the suggested actions would include smth like "do quests" (cause they maybe give the most node xp), while after lvl3 the contest could depend on the type of nodes that are fighting for the lvl up and player actions would require them to do something related to the type of their node.
Imo this would be a much better system than just "well, this node simply had more people in it, so your node got fucked over".
Especially because I believe that mobs will be spawning in the same locations on every server. And those mobs will have the same loot across all servers. This then means that groups (namely guilds, especially hardcore ones) that are trying to play optimally would grind those mobs/bosses (gatherable mats) in the same spots on all servers, which then means that the nodes that house those mobs/gatherables would be the ones getting the most xp, which would lead to them being the ones that lvl up the fastest. And this could inevitably lead to samey-looking servers, which kinda goes against the plan of "each server will look diferently cause different nodes will grow at different paces on different servers".
And yes, I know, the classic "let's test this before suggesting changes" always applies, but I doubt we'll see the true picture of how nodes will grow during A2. We miiiight see that in betas, but those are years out and putting untested changes into the NODE system seems like a bad idea that close to release.
All the while, testing my suggestion would be fairly simple. Intrepid delevel a bunch of nodes in a location > tp people there (during a predetermined test time) > say "choose a node you want and play like you'd play normally" > and then see how well the challenge thing does, if at all well.
So, what do yall think?
Ludullu
4
Re: Vassal resentment
I'm all in favor for the vassal system, it just should not be an automatic system action. It should require player action to initiate and defend against any sort of vassalage. It should not be the end all be all unless you get lucky and someone else knocks the regent node down a peg. I'm just saying more options are better.
Kind of makes the point in support of allowing a rebellion right there. I mean, do you really expect everyone to accept forced second class citizenship?
I agree, you have options with the current system. Option 1, move out leaving everything you've built and worked toward behind. Option 2, accept you place of subservience and do what master tells you.
I agree that the vassal system will eventually smooth out into some semblance of a country. That will take time, and in that time the strife and unrest of the discontent should be allowed to manifest. Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying this should happen every time. I'm not saying that it would happen every time if given the option. I'm just saying the option should be there.
Having that option would then require the regent node to either spend time and resources to fix the problem or accept that it's going to happen and accept the consequences of letting it happen. Either way, it will help stabilize the world map because the war hungry larger powers will have to slow down and consolidate regularly to prevent it or accept suddenly losing parts of their controlled land to powers from within.
So.. Once enslaved...err.. forced to vassalize you are pretty much forced to work for master in your home node or give up everything and move. Before anyone tries to say that the higher nodes enslave nearby nodes is some sort of typo or play on word or misunderstanding, let me assure you it is not.
Diplomatic vassalage is where a weaker group seeks something from stronger group and accepts vassalage by pledging loyalty and or service to the stronger group. That, being voluntary and agreed upon would be a transactional deal, similar in a way to a work contract by a company or corporation. Forced vassalage, by war or other means, is forcing the subjugation of one group by another group. Now, as clearly defined and cited multiple times in different ways, the new subjugated vassal HAS to give up taxes and exp to their master node. Yes, I said it, their MASTER node. Because that's what it is, there is no friendship, no partnership. There is only master taking advantage of the enslaved to grow in power. Eventually over time both forms of vassalage can and probably will lead to a cohesive group working toward the same goal, but that's just it, eventually over time.
Now do not get me wrong by any means. I am not against the vassal system being in the game. It's going to be a very integral part of the game. I'm not even arguing against forced vassalage, as that is part of the vassal system. I'm saying that in no way should vassalage be an automatic system reaction, it should require direct player action, be it diplomatic or aggressive. In the event of an aggressive action that causes forced vassalization there should be a way for the vassal to try undermine and possibly overthrow their oppressors.
Is that a possibility? Yes. Is that going to happen every time every where? In the short term, most likely. In the long term, doubtful. With the non overbearing larger powers? Doubtful after the their reputation is know. With the super overbearing larger powers? Of course, most likely very often. Now the real question is; how bad is the controllable taxation and overall douchey attitude going to be in those overbearing larger powers if the people under them in the vassal system can and will constantly make life harder for them?
Is this what I want? Simple answer, Yes. I would love to see systems like that in place. I'm not going to whine about it if it doesn't happen as it will likely have little impact on how I play either way. It's just an idea that I personally, and it seems at least a minority of others, would love to see implemented.
This is already said in the WIKI:
Nodes encompass more land as they grow and will require more effort to be sustained. This system is a main driver for change in the world because it creates scarcity. As Nodes advance in stages of growth they will lock out neighboring Nodes from progressing, and will absorb their zones of influence.[1]
Kind of makes the point in support of allowing a rebellion right there. I mean, do you really expect everyone to accept forced second class citizenship?
You always have options. Even without rebellion you can relocate to different zone. Maybe 1 day you will be able to siege the node as enemy and take what was yours.
The whole idea behind the Vasal system is that TOGETHER you are like 1 country. And you should work together for the prosperity of this country.
I agree, you have options with the current system. Option 1, move out leaving everything you've built and worked toward behind. Option 2, accept you place of subservience and do what master tells you.
I agree that the vassal system will eventually smooth out into some semblance of a country. That will take time, and in that time the strife and unrest of the discontent should be allowed to manifest. Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying this should happen every time. I'm not saying that it would happen every time if given the option. I'm just saying the option should be there.
Having that option would then require the regent node to either spend time and resources to fix the problem or accept that it's going to happen and accept the consequences of letting it happen. Either way, it will help stabilize the world map because the war hungry larger powers will have to slow down and consolidate regularly to prevent it or accept suddenly losing parts of their controlled land to powers from within.
Wiki wrote:Village (stage 3) or higher nodes enslave nearby nodes, converting them into vassal nodes.[2][12]
Vassal nodes must remain at least one node stage below their parent node.[2]
Vassal nodes give excess experience to their parent node and may have their own vassals; so long as they fall within the parent node’s zone of influence.[26][2]
Regent nodes collect taxes from their vassal nodes. These taxes cannot be taken by the mayor or other players.[14]
Vassals are subject to the government, alliances, wars, taxes, and trade of their parent node, and are able to receive federal aid from them.[2]
Mayors are able to set a generalized node tax rate as well as overrides for different activities within their node. Mayors gain additional taxation controls as their node advances.[1][2]
Regent nodes take a cut of taxes from various activities that occur within their vassal node structure.[14][15]
This tax doesn't necessarily impact the individual citizen, because citizen's tax levels are determined by
their node, but the node's finances are affected by the taxation levied by its parent nodes.[15]
So.. Once enslaved...err.. forced to vassalize you are pretty much forced to work for master in your home node or give up everything and move. Before anyone tries to say that the higher nodes enslave nearby nodes is some sort of typo or play on word or misunderstanding, let me assure you it is not.
Diplomatic vassalage is where a weaker group seeks something from stronger group and accepts vassalage by pledging loyalty and or service to the stronger group. That, being voluntary and agreed upon would be a transactional deal, similar in a way to a work contract by a company or corporation. Forced vassalage, by war or other means, is forcing the subjugation of one group by another group. Now, as clearly defined and cited multiple times in different ways, the new subjugated vassal HAS to give up taxes and exp to their master node. Yes, I said it, their MASTER node. Because that's what it is, there is no friendship, no partnership. There is only master taking advantage of the enslaved to grow in power. Eventually over time both forms of vassalage can and probably will lead to a cohesive group working toward the same goal, but that's just it, eventually over time.
Now do not get me wrong by any means. I am not against the vassal system being in the game. It's going to be a very integral part of the game. I'm not even arguing against forced vassalage, as that is part of the vassal system. I'm saying that in no way should vassalage be an automatic system reaction, it should require direct player action, be it diplomatic or aggressive. In the event of an aggressive action that causes forced vassalization there should be a way for the vassal to try undermine and possibly overthrow their oppressors.
For rebellion, for example if city want to rebel against the Metropolis. This will affect all vasal nodes below the city. As well as the whole country negatively.
Just imagine with the current 9 nodes above Village. Everyone will want to ascend to next stage.
So what will happen? You will have 4 Villages rebelling against cities and towns. Towns rebelling against Cities and cities rebelling against the Metropolis. In the end everyone is with 0 resources, 0 equipment, 0 crafting workstations and ect.
Is this what you want?
Is that a possibility? Yes. Is that going to happen every time every where? In the short term, most likely. In the long term, doubtful. With the non overbearing larger powers? Doubtful after the their reputation is know. With the super overbearing larger powers? Of course, most likely very often. Now the real question is; how bad is the controllable taxation and overall douchey attitude going to be in those overbearing larger powers if the people under them in the vassal system can and will constantly make life harder for them?
Is this what I want? Simple answer, Yes. I would love to see systems like that in place. I'm not going to whine about it if it doesn't happen as it will likely have little impact on how I play either way. It's just an idea that I personally, and it seems at least a minority of others, would love to see implemented.
Re: Vassal resentment
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »I've responded to a similar sentiment several times. I don't want to move, I don't want to wait and pray - I want to have the ability to do something. I want to be proactive. Getting an outside to join me (hell, even requiring it) would be completely fine. High cost requirements - also completely fine.
But give me the ability to do SOMETHING to try and attempt a revolution.
I agree. on a personal level, sitting by and watching something I don't want to happen without doing something about it goes against my principles. on a less subjective level I don't see how automatic failure based on population density is fun.
there will be people that are fine with being vassalized and I got nothing to say about that. but I don't like the feeling of helplessness of being told to suck it up and accept this situation you are in. we are talking about forced servitude after all. they can pretty that up as much as they want with rewards, and falsely call it an alliance. but that doesn't change the situation at the core.
Kyskei
1
Re: Vassal resentment
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »There'll immediately be another lvl5 instead of it and the vassal system would get new blood into it from a buffer node.
Removing all citizens would pretty much do the same thing. Their housing would be removed, most likely their shops and stalls as well. All their node currency would be gone as well, so taxes would stall for quite a bit. Mayoral elections would have to be delayed for some time.
Except now this empty node would be the best target for a siege, which would then mean that any rebellion would be tracked by enemies and the lvl5 would still be destroyed.
THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS!
PER THE WIKI:
A Village (stage 3) can control an Encampment (stage 2) or an Expedition (stage 1). If the Village (stage 3) gets destroyed through a siege, its dependant Encampment (stage 2) and Expedition (stage 1) nodes are also destroyed.
The moment your Metropolis destroy a city, you lose 1 city, 1 towns, 2 villages and all encamplents.
And also. if you destroy your own Metropolis, the whole region is destroyed.
OR maybe you want to change their whole way sieges work? Its like making changes to provide what some superiority complexed players want, but negatively impact 80% of the playerbase.
No, the wiki says if you destroy a stage 3 node, all stage 1 and 2 nodes under it are destroyed.
It says nothing about a stage 4 (or higher) node being destroyed having any effect on any stage 3 (or higher) nodes under.
This is because stage 1 and 2 nodes aren't considered something that can support themselves properly, not because a nodes destruction destroys everything below it in the chain.
this in the wiki is just example how the siege works. Not that it only applies to stage 3 nodes
No, you are wrong.
If you go to the clip after the statement you are talking about, Steven clarifies that this is a specific distinction for stage 3 nodes and their vassals, stating that this because the stage 1 and 2 nodes technically aren't vassals because they have no citizens.
Noaani
1
Re: Vassal resentment
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »There'll immediately be another lvl5 instead of it and the vassal system would get new blood into it from a buffer node.
Removing all citizens would pretty much do the same thing. Their housing would be removed, most likely their shops and stalls as well. All their node currency would be gone as well, so taxes would stall for quite a bit. Mayoral elections would have to be delayed for some time.
Except now this empty node would be the best target for a siege, which would then mean that any rebellion would be tracked by enemies and the lvl5 would still be destroyed.
THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS!
PER THE WIKI:
A Village (stage 3) can control an Encampment (stage 2) or an Expedition (stage 1). If the Village (stage 3) gets destroyed through a siege, its dependant Encampment (stage 2) and Expedition (stage 1) nodes are also destroyed.
The moment your Metropolis destroy a city, you lose 1 city, 1 towns, 2 villages and all encamplents.
And also. if you destroy your own Metropolis, the whole region is destroyed.
OR maybe you want to change their whole way sieges work? Its like making changes to provide what some superiority complexed players want, but negatively impact 80% of the playerbase.
No, the wiki says if you destroy a stage 3 node, all stage 1 and 2 nodes under it are destroyed.
It says nothing about a stage 4 (or higher) node being destroyed having any effect on any stage 3 (or higher) nodes under.
This is because stage 1 and 2 nodes aren't considered something that can support themselves properly, not because a nodes destruction destroys everything below it in the chain.
Noaani
1
Re: The best implementation of AoE
Why do you create another thread instead of replying on the official one ? Pure curiosity.
Re: List of reasons to allow Shadow computers
JeanPhilippeGunghar wrote: »I will buy one I pay in 12 equal payments. Thanks everyone!
There you go. Instead of renting a virtual machine and paying monthly for CPU. Just pay monthly for your own PC.
And I will tell you, maybe you think it is great here in U.S. but I have a issue with that. Was looking to buy a pre fab cabin kit from a company in Canada. The exchange rate to US made it a very good looking price. So if I could, I would do it and help your economy and fabricators. But then I found there is a 35% tariff to bring building materials into US.
Oh well ☹️. Anyways, go by a computer on monthly installments instead of renting a CPU and pay for clock cycles.
rollox
1
Re: Divine nodes: "Mega Catacomb" Dungeon. Will the Catacombs Be PVX or pure PVE?
I hope they're pvx
Don't believe we've heard info either way though.
Don't believe we've heard info either way though.
Ludullu
3
Re: Let's TheoryRaid #5 - Tiamat (FFXI) vs FireBrand
The thing most likely to give summoners their 'gameplay' is the specialization into how many summons they have, and which of the abilities of those summons they empower.
I think you know I have a napkin-schema for this, but the schema isn't important because beyond this, you don't have a way to distinguish Summoners from each other that isn't wildly and possibly frustratingly different from every other Archetype.
So it's almost 'obviously' a difference based on if you normally summon 3 things or 2 things or 1 thing, and for the '3 things' the question of whether it's '2, 2, 1' or '3, 1, 1'. Not because I 'want' it to be that, simply that your other option is just FFXI where you just get a linear progression in capacity and no differentiation.
I personally think it is okay for a '2, 2, 1' style summoner to go to Firebrand with the intention of being mostly Ranged DPS no matter what their secondary archetype is.
FireBrand's design 'tells you not to try to tank with this type of Summoner' to some extent. So even if that summoner normally fights in a group that likes to take on groups of enemies with the summons tanking for a bit, that 'role' is not available. But the 'gameplay' of 'position my summons, set them up to achieve my part of the goal of this fight', is. And if PvP appears, who knows, they might be the first person you rely on to spread out their summons and 'tank' some incoming enemy players.
A Summoner/Tank will do that better than a Summoner/Ranger no matter what their 'number config' of Summons is, if they have the skill, with reasonable augments. The specifics of their summons will matter too, but much more likely to be similar to the way Weapons affect a Fighter.
A 'single Summon' specialist is less likely to be effective as an off-healer/shielder for FireBrand, if they are Summoner/Summoner, whereas they might be really effective if they are a Necromancer (because their single summon won't necessarily be constantly getting brought down by FireBrand's attacks).
Stuff like that. FF does this differentiation by associating nearly every Summon with an Element, but it's a weak differentiation and by lategame, everyone just 'has all the gear for all of it'. But even this still sorta works. If you didn't have the ability to swap your entire gearset in one Macro in that game (i.e. like Ashes), you would still know that when you go to Tiamat, you should 'gear to enhance Garuda' if you wanted to DPS and Backup Heal, or 'gear to Enhance Leviathan' if you wanted to primarily backup heal, or even the rare 'gear to enhance Shiva' if you planned to spend most of your time controlling Air Elemental and Antlion adds.
Ashes has the ability to take this to the next level, true differentiation, by focusing the variety within Summoner on 'how many things you are good at summoning at a time'. We'll see..
I think you know I have a napkin-schema for this, but the schema isn't important because beyond this, you don't have a way to distinguish Summoners from each other that isn't wildly and possibly frustratingly different from every other Archetype.
So it's almost 'obviously' a difference based on if you normally summon 3 things or 2 things or 1 thing, and for the '3 things' the question of whether it's '2, 2, 1' or '3, 1, 1'. Not because I 'want' it to be that, simply that your other option is just FFXI where you just get a linear progression in capacity and no differentiation.
I personally think it is okay for a '2, 2, 1' style summoner to go to Firebrand with the intention of being mostly Ranged DPS no matter what their secondary archetype is.
FireBrand's design 'tells you not to try to tank with this type of Summoner' to some extent. So even if that summoner normally fights in a group that likes to take on groups of enemies with the summons tanking for a bit, that 'role' is not available. But the 'gameplay' of 'position my summons, set them up to achieve my part of the goal of this fight', is. And if PvP appears, who knows, they might be the first person you rely on to spread out their summons and 'tank' some incoming enemy players.
A Summoner/Tank will do that better than a Summoner/Ranger no matter what their 'number config' of Summons is, if they have the skill, with reasonable augments. The specifics of their summons will matter too, but much more likely to be similar to the way Weapons affect a Fighter.
A 'single Summon' specialist is less likely to be effective as an off-healer/shielder for FireBrand, if they are Summoner/Summoner, whereas they might be really effective if they are a Necromancer (because their single summon won't necessarily be constantly getting brought down by FireBrand's attacks).
Stuff like that. FF does this differentiation by associating nearly every Summon with an Element, but it's a weak differentiation and by lategame, everyone just 'has all the gear for all of it'. But even this still sorta works. If you didn't have the ability to swap your entire gearset in one Macro in that game (i.e. like Ashes), you would still know that when you go to Tiamat, you should 'gear to enhance Garuda' if you wanted to DPS and Backup Heal, or 'gear to Enhance Leviathan' if you wanted to primarily backup heal, or even the rare 'gear to enhance Shiva' if you planned to spend most of your time controlling Air Elemental and Antlion adds.
Ashes has the ability to take this to the next level, true differentiation, by focusing the variety within Summoner on 'how many things you are good at summoning at a time'. We'll see..
Azherae
1
Re: Resurrection during combat
daveywavey wrote: »It's PvX though, we shouldn't be thinking of it in terms of PvE and PvP.
No its a pvp game with pve excuses to gank each other. Casual players already pushing their impossible balancing.
P0GG0
1